This system emerged from the mounting skepticism of reformers in the 1940’s that voters could not distinguish between able judicial candidates from mediocre ones. This skepticism was due in part to the political machines that were dominating the local selection of judges, which Roscoe Pound criticized in his address, "The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice" (winters, 1965). It placed courts into politics convincing judges to be part of the politicians, almost destroying the traditional respect for the bench. The original merit selection plan was then developed by Albert Kanes as a means to “manage all the issues that were afflicting the courts” and was endorsed by the American Judicature and the American Bar Association and first instituted in Missouri in 1940 (Berkson, 1980).
Judicial selection process in Tennessee
Selection of state court judges in Tennessee has been shown to vary significantly by the court level. The Appellate judges, for instance, are selected through the use of Tennessee Plan which is simply a system of assisted appointment and retention elections. The judges of the Trial Court take part in the partisan elections; however, each county had the prudence to decide in the nonpartisan elections. The elected and retained judges will then serve for eight years beginning on September 1 (Parks, 1976). The appellate courts which comprise of the Tennessee Supreme Court, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals and even Tennessee Court of Appeals all choose judges using a similar approach. Within the Tennessee Plan, the governor of creates the preliminary arrangements, and the judges will then be expected to face voters in the retention elections to ensure that they retain another new term. In the year 2014, there was a state ballot measure referred to as Tennessee Judicial Selection, Amendment 2, which further changed the judicial selection process for the appellate courts.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Based on this measure, the Supreme Court together with the intermediate appellate court judges is all chosen by the governor then later confirmed by the Tennessee State Legislature, after which they will face retention elections to obtain a new term. The measure evidently offered the state legislatures with some additional input into the selection process. According to Parks (1976), after serving for at least 30 days then it follows that the new appointee will stand to be retained in the coming general election. To fill an interim position, the judge will be required to serve the remaining period of the term before participating for possible retention to complete his or her eight-year team. All these judges are all voted by the state’s voters. The chief justice in Tennessee is specifically chosen through peer election. Further, all the chief judges of every court of appeals are chosen by peer election.
In order for an individual to serve in the appellate court in Tennessee, as a judge he or she ought to have the following primary qualifications. He must be certified to put into practice law within the state and must be a resident of the district for about one year especially if applying for the court of appeals judge. The candidate must further be a resident of the state for five years and be about 30 years old for the two intermediate appellate courts and at least 35 years old for the state supreme court (Parks, 1976).
Judges of the circuit court, chancery court, criminal court and probate court are on the other hand elected through the partisan elections. In this case, each county has the power to participate in nonpartisan elections of different trial court judges in case they feel so. All trial court judges will be required to serve a period of eight years then participate in re-election to retain their position. The presiding judges of all the trial court are also chosen by peer vote, but he or she is expected to serve in that capacity for one year. For an individual to serve as a judge in the trial court, he ought to be certified to put into practice law in state and be a resident of the district for about one year. In addition to this, the individual must be a state resident for a period of 5 years; and be about 30 years old (Parks, 1976).
Judicial selection in Kentucky
Selection of state court judges in Kentucky has been shown to take place entirely in nonpartisan elections. For those judges who wish to hold the office for additional terms are required to participate in the re-election process. As defined in the state constitution, the period of an elected judge often start on the first Monday in January after ballot vote. The Kentucky Supreme Court’s judges of the Kentucky Court of Appeals are all voted to serve for eight years in a nonpartisan election. Further, they are required to run for re-election in case they are willing to serve the successive term. The chief justice and judge of every court are selected by peer election and are required to serve for four years (winters, 1965).
For a potential candidate to serve in these courts in Kentucky as a judge, he or she should be a US citizen in addition to being an inhabitant of the district for a period of two years. Additionally, he or she must be certified to put into practice law for eight years. In the event a midterm vacancy is experienced, the governor is in charge of appointing a descendant from the list of the names that have been presented by the Kentucky Judicial Nominating Commission. This judge will take part in the coming general voting, except the election to take part within three months where he will participate in the next election. According to Winters (1965), the Family Court is Kentucky Circuit Courts’ division, and their judges are also required to possess similar qualifications as the circuit court judges.
Kentucky District Courts judges, just like the rest of the judges are also elected through nonpartisan elections and serve for four-year and are further required to participate in the re-election if they wish to retain their position. There are specific qualifications required for one to serve as a judge including he or she ought to be a citizen of US, represented district’s resident for two years; and further certified to put into practice law for about two years.
Compare and contrast the two states
It is evident that the two states differ significantly regarding the qualification necessary for a prospective candidate to become a judge and the states to be taken to remove a judge from office for various disciplinary reasons.
In both Kentucky and Tennessee, a candidate has to be certified to carry out law within the state. In Kentucky, one should be approved to put into practice law for at least eight years. Further, in both instances, a candidate must be a US citizen in addition to being a represented district’s resident. In Kentucky, it has been specified that one should have been a resident of the district for least two years while in Tennessee; one should be a resident of the for one year especially if applying for the court of appeals judge. In addition to this, the potential candidate in Tennessee must further be a state resident for a period of five years. Further, in Tennessee, the candidate must be at least 30 years of age for the two intermediate appellate courts and at least 35 years old to the state supreme court (Winters, 1965).
In Kentucky, a judge may be removed from office in the following two ways: First, Judicial Conduct Commission upon receiving a notice and hearing will reprove, warn, suspend, retire, or eliminate a serving judge. Secondly, they can be stopped from working via impeachment by Kentucky House of Representatives, and then he or she will be convicted by Kentucky State Senate’s two-thirds vote. On the other hand, removing a judge in Tennessee will be achieved through impeachment by the House of Representatives then will be convicted by senate’s two-thirds vote. The second method is after the court of the judiciary’s recommendation to remove a particular judge then the general assembly will have to remove him from office through both houses’ two-thirds vote.
Justification of best selection process
Based on the above analysis, Kentucky judicial selection process is the best system in place because it takes place entirely in nonpartisan elections. Once elected, the circuit court judges, the Supreme Court and even court of appeals will be expected to serve for a term of eight years while the district judge will serve for four years before the next election giving them adequate time to serve the office. On the other hand, the judicial selection process in Tennessee has been considered as a "hybrid" state where judges are chosen through merit selection and partisan election hence criticized by several states (winters, 1965).
History and organization of the American court system
The judiciary branch has been rife with controversy since its beginning in 1776 when the founding fathers granted neither the power of the sword nor the power of the purse to the third branch, but rather placed its fragile basis for power and authority in the tumultuous hands of the public. Thus in modern times, the independence and accountability of the judiciary directly affect the public confidence in the courts so significantly that the very existence of the rule of law is dependent on public confidence because the public will not support institutions in which they have no confidence. Judicial elections in the US began with the rise of the Jacksonian democracy in the early nineteenth century along with the rise of suspicion that aristocracy dominated the bench (Berkson, 1980). President Jackson notoriously referred to judges as “politicians who hide their policies under their robes” and advocated greater accountability in the judiciary to the public through elections. The same sentiment holds true today that the “virtues that make a person a good judge are not usually the same virtues that make a good politician.” However, in today’s society judges are often believed to be policy makers and “like all policymakers in a democracy must retain their posts to their policy goals” (Berkson, 1980). Through the electoral selection process justices are forced into the increasingly politically charged atmosphere of campaigning; which one state Supreme Court justice once described as having “never felt so much like a hooker down by the bus station in any race did in a judicial race” (Berkson, 1980). In this critique of the judicial selection process of elections, there are three main points of dissent: campaigns, improper influences on judicial conduct, and judicial accountability.
Conclusion
The essay has focused on the judicial selection process of Kentucky and Tennessee. Further, the two selection processes practiced by the two states has been compared then determine the most suitable selection process. Lastly, the essay focused on the history and organization of the American court system.
References
Berkson, L. C. (1980). Judicial selection in the United States: a special report. Judicature , 64 , 176.
Parks, N. H. (1976). Judicial Selection-The Tennessee Experience. Mem. St. UL Rev. , 7 , 615.
Winters, G. R. (1965). Selection of Judges--An Historical Introduction. Tex. L. Rev. , 44 , 1081.
